should domestic animals have more rights
should domestic animals have more rights than they already do
yes
Side Score: 16
|
 |
no
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Domestic animals are under the protection of animal rights. Yet, abuse of domestic animals still continue to prevail in some societies. I think that domestic animals should receive more rights simply because humans are the ones responsible for their lives when we selected them to live under our roof. Just like how parents are liable for the life of their child, I see no reason why domestic animals shouldn't receive similar treatment. Side: yes
1
point
Animals Have Rights! Animal rights is the belief that animals have an intrinsic value separate from any value they have to humans, and are worthy of moral consideration. They have the right to be free of oppression, confinement, use and abuse by humans. They have life and hence right to be treated well. By respecting animal rights and having consideration for animal welfare we also support ecological balance Side: yes
1
point
|
That would be damage to property. He should have to pay you a portion of your investment into the dog. Those aren't animal rights, those are property rights. Also, your point hinges on it being owned. If I shoot out your window and you catch me, I need to pay to repair your window. If I shoot your dog, I have to pay reparations to compensate you for the loss of your property. Side: yes
Usually, when someone asks this question they are talking about protection from unnecessary harm or suffering. While it may make sense to take issue with the wording of the question, what do you think about the spirit of the question? Are animals sufficiently protected from unnecessary harm? Side: yes
So, essentially you are employing the idea: Since we have the capability of enslaving animals, then doing so would be okay since there is nothing they can do to stop us? In that case, I can easily place a bounty on your head for capture; so if someone were to be able to capture you, and I claimed you as property, then it would be within my right to do so (disregarding legalities/legal rights) since you did not have the capability to escape the situation (just as a dog or an animal doesn't). Side: yes
Animals are not humans. They should have no rights. Since when are rights limited to only humans? Have you ever heard of “animal rights?” They do not need rights, since they have no form of morals or conscience thought. Besides the broad sweeping generalization, what makes you think animals have no form of morals or conscience thought? I think you might find, with even a small amount of research, that animals aren’t the biological automatons you’re suggesting. Animals not being conscious is just plain false. And as far as morals: many animals exhibit various emotions and desires which more often than not translate into forms of social conduct. Caring for young, familial groupings, pets saving the lives of their owners, looking out over group for possible threats, pecking order, respecting another animals ‘territory,’ an animal caring for another animal of a different species, etc., etc. Albeit not as ‘civilized’ as their baseball cap wearing, semi-automatic toting, hotdog eating contestant, nuclear warhead launching counterparts, but a form of morals nonetheless. Why would we give animals rights in the first place? The only reason I can think of to be honest is to protect them from the maltreatment of humans. Side: yes
1
point
I read with interest the article in the UK Independent about “James” a voluntary return from Syria and his mother “Linda” who has great concerns for his welfare and the lack of support he is getting from available resources. All over the world there are people who are left to fight their demons alone and some who are simply put in the too hard basket and end up being forgotten when demand over reaches the availability of support. Too many people slip through the cracks. In Australia we turn illegal immigrants into prisoners by putting them in detention camps in other countries. Our suspicion and paranoia is punishing them, the very country they turned to for salvation. Should animals have more rights, yes, they should, especially the endangered species in face of industrial and human expansion. but lets not forget that we have a very long long way to go before all human animals have equal rights. Side: no
The treatment of domestic animals covers a wide spectrum of variance. On one end we have the lavish treatment of pets, on the other the end we find the animals we keep to eat. Common throughout this spectrum there are thought to be humane standards of treatment that set minimums as well as condemning unnecessary cruelty. Most societies have established laws that punish the mistreatment of domestic animals. IMO humans have enough protections to cover the reasonable treatment of animals. Side: no
|
